I broke the standard lens. Long story but, I bought it to replace my Canon AE1 programme, fancied a change. Used it for a couple of years and then the wife borrowed it while she was making a restaurant website. I got it back 2 years later after I had both my knees replaced. I took my son to watch the WRC here in France and fell over in the forest. I landed on my right knee and the lens :( I'd been talking about either the D7000 or D700 for a while, when the wife mentioned that it must be a sign to get a new camera. Now with the wife's blessing, I can upgrade :)

The D7000 is a great little camera.. a lot of fun .. you will be amazed with it coming from a D40. as for a lens, consider the new 24-120F4 VR since you can also use it on a full frame D800 as well. a 50mm with a dx camera is too restrictive i think.

I have been visiting the local camera shops today. I live and work near Basel in Switzerland, so have the options of France, Germany and Switzerland for shopping. All of the shops I have visited today are zero stock on the D700, apparently they are not selling them because of the future release of the D800 ! So that knocks my plans into touch. Seeing that the D7000 is 1,200 Swiss Francs, ( $1,300) I may go for that and carry on looking for a D700 for the future.

Gareth said:
this is exactly what i did. got the 50 1.4 to learn, then the 70-200 to extend my possibilities.

now i seldom use either lens, but i have many more to choose from.

the 50 1.4 isn't really sharp until 2.0, though 1.8 is passable. so keep that in mind when shooting. if you want tack sharp 1.4, you need to get the new 24, 35, or 85 (or the old 85). the 50 is pretty handy though and great for what you describe.

the 70-200 is a good lens, but it's pretty big and still "only" 2.8.

the 14-24 is a must for landscapes, unless you decide on a pc lens.

as far as the 24-70 is concerned i would actually listen to ken rockwell. imo the 1.4 primes are a much better option.

It would appear that our dear friend Gareth is in the "prime-lens" category here. Which to me is all good and dandy, so long as one has the funds in getting them; however, from what you have shared with us regarding your "family" responsibilities these lens are not practical (24, 35, 85 1.4 total cost $5320).

Personally, the lens and the camera combination you have chosen to go with Mike are excellent! You are going to love the result and those you share them with.

As for future lens consideration/purchases, I would throw the yellow flag on what Gareth has said regarding the 24-70mm only "2.8." I love this lens and has served my need, as well as many that have used it for portraits and landscape, to a tee. I hope one day you can get your hands on it and give it a run. I would agree with Gareth on the following: the 14-24mm 2.8 and the SB-700. Own both and are outstanding for what they allow me to accomplish.

Gareth said:
...
as far as the 24-70 is concerned i would actually listen to ken rockwell. imo the 1.4 primes are a much better option.
..

and I wouldn't, 50/1.4 is neither as sharp (even closed down) nor fast enough to compete with 50/1.4, 24/1.4 is nice as 35/1.4 is but the price tag they carry is twice as high as the one form 24-70. so, IMHO, if You don't need 1.4 there's no better option than to go for 24-70/2.8

MikeFrewer said:
My next camera will be the D700. I will start off with the 50mm 1.4 prime lens and learn the new camera with this lens. I will follow up with the 70-200 2.8, .....

this is exactly what i did. got the 50 1.4 to learn, then the 70-200 to extend my possibilities.

now i seldom use either lens, but i have many more to choose from.

the 50 1.4 isn't really sharp until 2.0, though 1.8 is passable. so keep that in mind when shooting. if you want tack sharp 1.4, you need to get the new 24, 35, or 85 (or the old 85). the 50 is pretty handy though and great for what you describe.

the 70-200 is a good lens, but it's pretty big and still "only" 2.8.

the 14-24 is a must for landscapes, unless you decide on a pc lens.

as far as the 24-70 is concerned i would actually listen to ken rockwell. imo the 1.4 primes are a much better option.

if you have the option to rent, i would buy the 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 (even the D is better than the 50 1.4G for sharpness wide open and lovely shallow depth of field) and rent other lenses for a week each to try and decide.

Mike, Enjoy your 700 I took exactly the same route, a 50 1.4 and the fabulous 70-200 but next bought the 24- 120 f4 VR and since buying it, I have only used the 50 1.4 once, but I do not shoot any low light action stuff with out flash

Once again a very big thank you for all of your help and advice. I am not a professional photographer by a long shot, and don't claim to be. My photography is a huge hobby and hopefully will be for a long time. I have decided with all of your help to do the following. My next camera will be the D700. I will start off with the 50mm 1.4 prime lens and learn the new camera with this lens. I will follow up with the 70-200 2.8, and as mentioned above the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 at a later date. Please don't think that i have very deep pockets, far from it. I have spent most of my life working hard (as we all do) looking after my family, and think that it's about time I treated myself.

Mike, the truth is, alot of people worry so much about equiptment and they may have great equiptment but horrible exposures and skills.

Honestly, one of my best friends builds his own lenses at times, and uses non pro cameras for his photos and the end result is quite magnificent. I have alot of respect for him because i know the equipment he has and he does not worry as much as other people, he uses what he has to make great pictures.

Your equipment is broken, fair enough, but you dont need to deck it out with a D3s in order make great pictures, nor do you need $5000 lenses. Sure, it makes it easier...and it requires less post processing perhaps. But in the end, it boils down to what you can do with what you own. And i repeat this to myself as often as possible when i begin to think about getting a new body for example. Truth is, Lens > Body.

Now, if you say price is irrelevant and you just want to buy some great equipment, then go for the D700, a 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and all you will have to worry about is making the best of it, and I am sure it will last you for quite some time.

tcole1983 said:
Wow you are taking a big leap. From a D40 with kit lens to a $1000+ body and around $5000 worth of lenses.

While I agree, there are those of us who get to a point in life where our options open up. I went from a D70s and 18-200 lens to a D700, D7000 and the three f2.8 zooms in a year. Mostly because I now have the time and money to spend on photography (purely as a hobby).

So, given all that. Mike, if you think you want to go to two bodies, then definitely opt for option 2. The D7000 is a great camera and if the D800 provides something you really want, they would make a great team. Personally, I would still opt for the D700 in favor given the specs I've seen. I don't want to deal with the larger files and high ISO is the #1 criteria for me (that's what got me started down the upgrade path).

Personally, I think the 70-200 is a bit big on the D7000 without the battery grip, but if you are shooting from a tripod it won't matter. That lens balances beautifully on the D700, especially when using the battery grip.

The 14-24 is a bit disappointing to me on the D7000 (21mm equiv isn't very wide), but has come in very handy when I need to video a performance from the front row in a small room (it can still get a full Marimba into the frame from 4 feet). It is spectacular on the D700 and gives you the very wide angle that you want for landscapes or for super close quarters pictures. That lens on the D700 would rock in Venice with the small streets and tall churches in small courtyards.

If you are going with a prime in the middle, I would opt for the 50mm. I have the old 50/f1.8D and it works well on both cameras. A standard lens on the D700 and a short tele on the D7000. Great for portraits either way (if you like to work close).

Personally, I'm thinking the D800 is going to be a pass for me with the specs that it has. I don't need the higher video spec (in fact the video from the D7000 is awesome and already very large files as it is). For most video that I post to YouTube or such for friends gets cut way, way down from the original anyway. So, unless the D800 can provide a stop or two better ISO performance than the D700, it would be a non-starter for me. If you shoot WRX, you may find that higher ISO is also more important. An overcast day may require shooting at 3200 ISO just get the shutter speed and f-number that you want.

Wow you are taking a big leap. From a D40 with kit lens to a $1000+ body and around $5000 worth of lenses.

Either one is a pretty good setup. I would maybe opt for the D7000 and get a teleconverter with the money you would save over the D700. When used on the 70-200 it can produce pretty good results and 200 mm isn't usually long enough for wildlife. Also if you get the D700 you will lose the 1.5x crop factor and then 200 mm really isn't long enough for wildlife and might be pretty short for motorsports as well.

I've had thoughts about printing photos, and there will only be the odd few to be printed 3' x 2'. I reckon that most would be printed slightly larger than 10" x 8". So that still leaves me with a choice of 2 cameras.

D700 Good lowlight capabilities and good for large prints.
D7000 Extends lens reach with crop factor and faster fps.

Option 1
Or do I buy the lenses and use on the D40 until the eagerly awaited D800 arrives and see the full specs on that.

Option 2
Buy the D7000 and lenses, wait for the D800 and compare it with the D700, then buy the one which would be better for my type of photography.

MikeFrewer said:
Thank you both for your input. My choice of photography is varied. I take landscape, wildlife, Motorsports and family portraits. Changing lenses wouldn't be a problem, choosing the correct ones is :) (any advice would be great). The D700 and D7000 are my two choices of camera. I'm undecided which one at the moment. Again, knowing my choice of photography, any advice greatly apreciated.

For landscape at least I'd imagine you want a wider lens than 50mm (75mm with the crop factor). I use the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 and the Nikkor 20mm/f2.8. I tend towards the Nikkor nowadays since it is much smaller and that is great for hiking, and the ultrawide on the Tokina usually sucks up too much of the foreground for my liking. There are any number of great ultrawide - wide zooms and primes out there, but my experience with those two has been great and at ~500 USD they perform very well for their price.

Thank you both for your advice. Warprints, I have been so used to looking at my pictures on my laptop, I'd not even thought about printing them ! I suppose if I had a really good photo, maybe I'd want to print it about 3' by 2'. Something else I have to think about now !

I love the 70-200. Certainly would recommend it.
Camera body, though ... hmmm. Lot of difference between the D700 and D7000. For motorsports and such, I'd think hard about the D7000 (or D300s) as the 1.5x lense factor helps a good bit extending the reach of the lense and the D7000 shoots slightly faster fps.

Thank you both for your input. My choice of photography is varied. I take landscape, wildlife, Motorsports and family portraits. Changing lenses wouldn't be a problem, choosing the correct ones is :) (any advice would be great). The D700 and D7000 are my two choices of camera. I'm undecided which one at the moment. Again, knowing my choice of photography, any advice greatly apreciated.